|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An Inconvenient "Truth"?
Scientists: Gore Goes Too Far in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Several experts on climate change, including both proponents and skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, question former Vice President Al Gore's assertions in his Academy Award-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth."
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," said Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, told an annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, according to a report in The New York Times. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
In the slideshow presentation that is the central part of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore lays out what most researchers consider to be the worst-case scenario for global warming, with total melting of polar ice caps, a sea-level rise of 20 feet and catastrophic flooding and droughts.
"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, told the Times. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."
Current scientific consensus holds that human industrial activity has sharply increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, and that average temperatures worldwide will rise for at least the next century — but at a much more gradual rate than that depicted in "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Climate change is a real and serious problem," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and statistician whose book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" challenges many of the catastrophic assertions made by proponents of the global-warming theory. "The cacophony of screaming does not help."
What do you think about this film and this issue? Is global warming a real and immanent threat? Or is it just one big exaggeration?
Last edited by arowphin on Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Several experts on climate change, including both proponents and skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, question former Vice President Al Gore's assertions in his Academy Award-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth."
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," said Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, told an annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, according to a report in The New York Times. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
In the slideshow presentation that is the central part of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore lays out what most researchers consider to be the worst-case scenario for global warming, with total melting of polar ice caps, a sea-level rise of 20 feet and catastrophic flooding and droughts.
"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, told the Times. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."
Current scientific consensus holds that human industrial activity has sharply increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, and that average temperatures worldwide will rise for at least the next century — but at a much more gradual rate than that depicted in "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Climate change is a real and serious problem," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and statistician whose book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" challenges many of the catastrophic assertions made by proponents of the global-warming theory. "The cacophony of screaming does not help."
What do you think about this film and this issue? Is global warming a real and immanent threat? Or is it just one big exaggeration?
Last edited by arowphin on Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
I had to watch this film for a class - good movie.
I'd say that his claims made in the movie are based on current research and actual facts; that is to say that he isn't just making those things up. There is general agreement in the scientific community of this too.
I'd say that his claims made in the movie are based on current research and actual facts; that is to say that he isn't just making those things up. There is general agreement in the scientific community of this too.
| Insanity wrote: |
| ...There is general agreement in the scientific community of this too. |
And your evidence for this is what, where, please?
In order to answer satisfactorily, you'll have to find the results from a survey of all the scientists on the planet with the question,"Is the current warm and warming phase on the planet due, solely, to the emissions of carbon dioxide gas by the single species homo sapiens?"
Since these anthropic emissions are tiny (gigatonnes per annum converts, roughly, to 10[sup]5[/sup] kg/s) in comparison to the atmospheric reservoir (>>10[sup]15[/sup] kg); radiative exchange occurs quickly (it usually gets colder at night); water vapour is, by a very long way, the atmosphere's dominant 'greenhouse gas' and <70% of the planet's surface is liquid water, only a fool answers "Yes" to the question above.
Al Gore is a politician (and stand-up comic in the videos i've seen) persuaded by 'belief' systems. I have seen the evidence of the IPCC, RealClimate.net, Sciencefile.org &c and remain concerned that they (AGW-ists) are barking up the wrong tree.
So it goes. ed.
I dont think it's happening. Al Gore is a looney who wants to be president.
At the parts of where the polar ice caps are melting the other parts are growing! It's funny how in this film Al Gore failed to mention that
! But it's obviously because he wanted to rally up people to the democrats side, so he could win the presidential election 
!
Al Gore's a nut!
At the parts of where the polar ice caps are melting the other parts are growing! It's funny how in this film Al Gore failed to mention that
! But it's obviously because he wanted to rally up people to the democrats side, so he could win the presidential election !
Al Gore's a nut!
i dont know where i stand with global warming. on one hand, its a potential threat to the future, but on the other hand, its going slow at the moment, and ill be long gone before it gets ridiculously bad
| CyanEyed wrote: |
| i dont know where i stand with global warming. on one hand, its a potential threat to the future, but on the other hand, its going slow at the moment, and ill be long gone before it gets ridiculously bad |
Is that ok then? if we're gone and the next generation has to live in our mess...
You really should cite your source. It's obvious you copied it off of the internet. It is also plagiarism if you don't post your source. And, it makes your post look more professional.
I didn't see yet Al Gore's documentary.
FACT: global warming (caused by man or not) is happening.
Last edited by smarter on Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. - From the Joint Statement on Climate Change - National Science Academies |
FACT: global warming (caused by man or not) is happening.
Last edited by smarter on Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
The fact is the US & Australian governments didn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol along with a dozen small countries. The rest of the world ratified it. THE REST OF THE WORLD COMMITTED TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING. Why US didn't ratified it? Because USA are the biggest air polluter. Industrial corporations don't want their money spent on ecological technologies.
But the general public has begun to take measures for them (eg. No more SUVs => Chrysler is having big problems)
That explains a lot about the US global warming debate. In US there is a POLITICAL debate not a scientific one. The Democrats are the alarmists and Republicans are the deniers. Both exaggerate for their own political gains.
In fact there is no debate about GLOBAL WARMING, the debate is about how much of it is caused by man.
| Quote: |
|
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/BUSINESS/703150313/1006/BUSINESS The leaders of General Motors, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler, along with the head of the United Auto Workers union, made a rare joint appearance before a House subcommittee. They stressed that proposed increases in gas mileage standards for new vehicles would be extremely expensive and could have calamitous results. "This could include the closing of additional facilities and the loss of tens of thousand of automotive jobs," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said. |
But the general public has begun to take measures for them (eg. No more SUVs => Chrysler is having big problems)
That explains a lot about the US global warming debate. In US there is a POLITICAL debate not a scientific one. The Democrats are the alarmists and Republicans are the deniers. Both exaggerate for their own political gains.
In fact there is no debate about GLOBAL WARMING, the debate is about how much of it is caused by man.
I think it may be somewhat of an exaggeration.
| smarter wrote: | ||
The fact is the US & Australian governments didn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol along with a dozen small countries. The rest of the world ratified it. THE REST OF THE WORLD COMMITTED TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING. Why US didn't ratified it? Because USA are the biggest air polluter. Industrial corporations don't want their money spent on ecological technologies.
But the general public has begun to take measures for them (eg. No more SUVs => Chrysler is having big problems) That explains a lot about the US global warming debate. In US there is a POLITICAL debate not a scientific one. The Democrats are the alarmists and Republicans are the deniers. Both exaggerate for their own political gains. In fact there is no debate about GLOBAL WARMING, the debate is about how much of it is caused by man. |
No, we didn't sign it because it is nonsense and contrary to economic development. Why people make global warming to be such a bad thing I'm not sure, stories of cataclysm and other sensational ideas. The truth is that it was warmer during medieval times than it is now and humans actually enjoyed a huge boon during the time known as the Medieval Warming. People didn't start suffering more until things began to cool back off. (Of course, this only speaks to Europe and not the rest of the world.)
Climate is always changing and always will. To think that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the miniscule amount we contribute (compared to volcanoes, the oceans, decay, and animals...heck compared to just one of those!) is causing this huge climate change that threatens the Earth like some B sci-fi movie alien invasion is ludicrous IMHO.
For all of you who refuse to be skeptical, I recommend you watch the British TV Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can view it here:The Great Global Warming Swindle
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| For all of you who refuse to be skeptical, I recommend you watch the British TV Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can view it here:The Great Global Warming Swindle |
Thank you for the link. I have no problem with skeptical scientists, and they make a very good case in the video you mentioned.
My problem is with people who are skeptical for (what I think are) wrong reasons:
- God will get us through this
- anyone with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo
- global warming is a good thing
- conspiracy theorists or other nuts who just want to be contrary
But, we have the vast majority of relevant experts saying it's a problem. It's kind of like Pascal's wager, if we ignore it and it turns out to be true, then we're in big trouble.
The issue is not so much merely just global warming, which may have positive effects in some parts of the world, but climate change.
In my opinion, the single biggest effect that climate change is expected to have on humanity is water supply. Maybe we can deal with more and stronger hurricanes, polar bears will adapt, we can build dikes around the oceans etc. But we have 6,000,000,000 people on this planet, already many of which do not have reliable access to clean water.
I've never seen it so I don't know.
I agree with most of what Gore says about global warming, but a lot of it is just a bunch of cheesy activism.
I don't care a whole lot about the environment. I will drive that big SUV and not give a hoot,
but there is one thing that does bother me, and that is the laziness of humanity.
If there is something we can do about an issue (and in the case of global warming, there is),
then we need to do it sooner or later. So why not sooner? We should get a head start on the problem,
if at all possible. Now, I know if we start changing our ways now it wouldn't exactly be a head start,
but when talking about any issue, we need to act on it right away.
That is my belief.
P.S. I am planning on getting rid of that SUV someday (I know, shame on me...polluting and procrastinating..OMG! I'm a hypocrite. Sue me.). I just don't want a hybrid. I want a pure-bred.
I don't care a whole lot about the environment. I will drive that big SUV and not give a hoot,
but there is one thing that does bother me, and that is the laziness of humanity.
If there is something we can do about an issue (and in the case of global warming, there is),
then we need to do it sooner or later. So why not sooner? We should get a head start on the problem,
if at all possible. Now, I know if we start changing our ways now it wouldn't exactly be a head start,
but when talking about any issue, we need to act on it right away.
That is my belief.
P.S. I am planning on getting rid of that SUV someday (I know, shame on me...polluting and procrastinating..OMG! I'm a hypocrite. Sue me.). I just don't want a hybrid. I want a pure-bred.
Honestly, it makes me mad to still be reading things like this.
Let me ask you this: Those things which are causing global warming (auto and industry emissions, deforestation) - what good are they to us? I mean, aside from lining the pockets of certain CEOs and "creating jobs" that would certainly be replaced by the huge job of creating a sustainable infrastructure for the United States. What good are they?
And why should we, when faced with disaster, build our policy around best-case scenarios? What sense does that make?
Even if those scenarios are true, and there is no global warming, should we ignore deforestation and the serious biodiversity and water quality issues that go hand in hand with it? Should we ignore the thousands of automobile deaths that occur each year, or the nation's obesity problem, or the fact that sprawling developments would be impossible without the car culture? Aren't these indicators that our national lifestyle is unhealthy and unsustainable? Who is benefiting from creating a world of pavement for our children? A few rich cut-throats who couldn't care less about their future, that's who. Honestly, what's so good about this consumer lifestyle that we can't bring ourselves to change it?
Why do we allow money to rule our country? Has everyone lost their mind and come to believe that the laws of the market will trump those of nature? I'll tell you what I think: Mankind cannot live without the earth, and mankind had damned well better start thinking about how to live within it.
And for the record, I voted for Nader and I'd do it again.
Let me ask you this: Those things which are causing global warming (auto and industry emissions, deforestation) - what good are they to us? I mean, aside from lining the pockets of certain CEOs and "creating jobs" that would certainly be replaced by the huge job of creating a sustainable infrastructure for the United States. What good are they?
And why should we, when faced with disaster, build our policy around best-case scenarios? What sense does that make?
Even if those scenarios are true, and there is no global warming, should we ignore deforestation and the serious biodiversity and water quality issues that go hand in hand with it? Should we ignore the thousands of automobile deaths that occur each year, or the nation's obesity problem, or the fact that sprawling developments would be impossible without the car culture? Aren't these indicators that our national lifestyle is unhealthy and unsustainable? Who is benefiting from creating a world of pavement for our children? A few rich cut-throats who couldn't care less about their future, that's who. Honestly, what's so good about this consumer lifestyle that we can't bring ourselves to change it?
Why do we allow money to rule our country? Has everyone lost their mind and come to believe that the laws of the market will trump those of nature? I'll tell you what I think: Mankind cannot live without the earth, and mankind had damned well better start thinking about how to live within it.
And for the record, I voted for Nader and I'd do it again.
| eggg wrote: |
| Honestly, it makes me mad to still be reading things like this.
Let me ask you this: Those things which are causing global warming (auto and industry emissions, deforestation) - what good are they to us? I mean, aside from lining the pockets of certain CEOs and "creating jobs" that would certainly be replaced by the huge job of creating a sustainable infrastructure for the United States. What good are they? |
That may be all well and good if you live in the United States or some other first-world country that can afford to absorb the cost of changing over. Heck, even if the current global warming (I use "current" since the earth naturally cools and warms, this just happens to be the only one blamed on humans) is just a natural cycle, it is no big deal economically for first-world countries to make changes that won't do one thing to hinder global warming.
But what about third-world countries? Is it right for the United Nations and other organizations to lean on them and coerce them into not using their coal or oil for domestic energy supply? Is it right to tell the poorest nations in the world that they must use the most expensive and least efficient means of power generation (i.e. solar or wind). Is it right to tell them that their people must suffer without electricity and with poor health facilities because it is bad for the world if they use coal and oil?
Unfortunately, I fear that the current global warming issue can be and is being used in such a manner that it is no better than 19th Century colonialism in holding back the development of places like Africa.
What honestly makes me mad is seeing a health facility in Africa that serves several poor villages being forced to use soalr power to generate electricity to power either its lights or its refridgerator (but not both at the same time).
Respectfully,
M
How could you not be seeing global warming as an immediate threat to anyone, everyone and anything that exists or will exist in the future?
Just this year -- here in Canada we've had record highs in almost all aspects of the weather. In Ottawa, where winters (usuallyidentified with heavy snowfall) begin in November, while this year we went through a GREEN Christmas. The temperatures when winter DID start dipped down to -40 C ! Global warming includes BOTH extremes. The warming CAUSES ice ages. Right now, we're in the warming part.
And for those of you saying "Oh, I'll be long gone before anything gets too severe." You're totally right. But you know who WONT be gone? Your children! Their children! Human kind. There will be more humans on this earth then, then there is now. Don't be so selfish. (that's not meant to be rude).
Thanks.[/i]
Just this year -- here in Canada we've had record highs in almost all aspects of the weather. In Ottawa, where winters (usuallyidentified with heavy snowfall) begin in November, while this year we went through a GREEN Christmas. The temperatures when winter DID start dipped down to -40 C ! Global warming includes BOTH extremes. The warming CAUSES ice ages. Right now, we're in the warming part.
And for those of you saying "Oh, I'll be long gone before anything gets too severe." You're totally right. But you know who WONT be gone? Your children! Their children! Human kind. There will be more humans on this earth then, then there is now. Don't be so selfish. (that's not meant to be rude).
Thanks.[/i]
| southy wrote: |
| How could you not be seeing global warming as an immediate threat to anyone, everyone and anything that exists or will exist in the future?
Just this year -- here in Canada we've had record highs in almost all aspects of the weather. In Ottawa, where winters (usuallyidentified with heavy snowfall) begin in November, while this year we went through a GREEN Christmas. The temperatures when winter DID start dipped down to -40 C ! Global warming includes BOTH extremes. The warming CAUSES ice ages. Right now, we're in the warming part. And for those of you saying "Oh, I'll be long gone before anything gets too severe." You're totally right. But you know who WONT be gone? Your children! Their children! Human kind. There will be more humans on this earth then, then there is now. Don't be so selfish. (that's not meant to be rude). Thanks.[/i] |
Humans contribute what, less than 0.5 - 1% of greenhouse gases?
The Earth's climate is not static. When working on 16th Century shipwrecks off the coast of Texas it was not uncommon to find something such as a mammoth tooth amongst the sediment. Obviously those Spaniards weren't carrying mammoths as part of their cargo.
Do we mourn that the mammoths and Indians who lived in those coastal regions then lost their habitats as the earth warmed?
In more recent times buffalo roamed as far south as the coast of Texas. Were they hunted out? No, the earth warmed and they migrated north. When the first explorers landed in what is now the subtropical region of south Texas, the winters were cold and snow was common. (The Little Ice Age)
People say we should worry about polar bears (who actually enjoy a larger population today than 50 years ago, I've heard). But did they not survive the Holocene Climatic Optimum? (To my knowledge, the warmest period in all of human history.)
I am no climatologist, but my gut feeling is that we are grossly overestimating our impact upon the climate. If history demonstrated that our climate was static, if we did not have a pattern of dramatic cooling and warming, of habitats coming and going, then I would positively say, "Yes, we must have screwed something up."
However the Earth's climate is dynamic for a number of reasons. And I personally (once again, gut feeling) think it incredibly arrogant for anyone to believe that modern computer models accurately account for everything that can possibly affect the climate (the "butterfly effect"). GIGO.
Will humans lament it when the Sahara desert turns green again as the earth wobbles into a more upright position again in the distant future? After all the desert culture of North Africa and the Middle East will vanish. I wonder. Hopefully they won't blame themselves tens of thousands years after that when it starts becoming a vast desert again as it is today.
Respectfully,
M
Moonspider, skepticism is good but skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is bad, its pseudo-skepticism.
Yes, the earths climate has changed in the past but all those changes have causes, the sun, changes in the earths orbit (more elliptical or less elliptical) but when you look at the currant worming, changes in the sun isn't enough to explain it, changes in the earths orbit takes thousands to tens of thousand of years, the only explanation that fits is human actions. the realises of green house gasses and not just carbon dioxide, but others such as methane from cow shit as well.
Add to this new information on the effect of CO2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v446/n7135/nature-2007-03-29.mp3
(Go to abou 5 minets 19 seconds into it or just read the Transcript)
Yes, the earths climate has changed in the past but all those changes have causes, the sun, changes in the earths orbit (more elliptical or less elliptical) but when you look at the currant worming, changes in the sun isn't enough to explain it, changes in the earths orbit takes thousands to tens of thousand of years, the only explanation that fits is human actions. the realises of green house gasses and not just carbon dioxide, but others such as methane from cow shit as well.
Add to this new information on the effect of CO2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
| Quote: |
| A recent synthesis2 suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 °C (5–95 per cent likelihood range), |
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v446/n7135/nature-2007-03-29.mp3
(Go to abou 5 minets 19 seconds into it or just read the Transcript)
I think even if Al Gore's movie was a bit 'colourful', it definitely had most of the basics right. It gets people to sit up, pay attention, discuss the issue, and even more scarily - actually engage in conversation about it (shock, horror!)
I think the people who say that there's nothing to worry about are deluded. They either don't want to make a change for the better, or are being perverse for the sheer sack of it.
What is so bad about admitting that we need to do something to stop polluting the air with carbon dioxide? It's not natural to burn so much fuel. Even if it doesn't result in the reduction of global warming (even if it turns out it doesn't exist), we'll have cleaner healthier air, and a better environment. Remember, burning fossil fuels makes many more nasties than just CO2. And digging and pumping it out of the ground isn't nice for any human, plant or animal in the vicinity. Why do we need to strenuously defend that?
I think the people who say that there's nothing to worry about are deluded. They either don't want to make a change for the better, or are being perverse for the sheer sack of it.
What is so bad about admitting that we need to do something to stop polluting the air with carbon dioxide? It's not natural to burn so much fuel. Even if it doesn't result in the reduction of global warming (even if it turns out it doesn't exist), we'll have cleaner healthier air, and a better environment. Remember, burning fossil fuels makes many more nasties than just CO2. And digging and pumping it out of the ground isn't nice for any human, plant or animal in the vicinity. Why do we need to strenuously defend that?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| No, we didn't sign it because it is nonsense and contrary to economic development. |
It's nonsense to say that it's contrary to economic development. A brief search of any non-biased literature will show there are as many economists who think it is beneficial as isn't. And even if we find that it's short-term effects are detrimental, we have to play the long-term game too. How will what even the moderate models predict effect our countries' economies?
Recently, some Australian companies have had to seek entry into other countries' carbon trading systems because of the lack of support at home. Whose economy is suffering here, the one who ratified or the one who sat on his hands?
| dayveday wrote: | ||
It's nonsense to say that it's contrary to economic development. A brief search of any non-biased literature will show there are as many economists who think it is beneficial as isn't. And even if we find that it's short-term effects are detrimental, we have to play the long-term game too. How will what even the moderate models predict effect our countries' economies? Recently, some Australian companies have had to seek entry into other countries' carbon trading systems because of the lack of support at home. Whose economy is suffering here, the one who ratified or the one who sat on his hands? |
I was thinking of third-world countries, not first world. In first-world countries you can build entire industries around trivial games.
So, no matter what we can make mitigating climate change, whether necessary or not, economically beneficial. However it can be very painful for third-world countries.
Given, if the current warming is caused by human activity, the United States is the greatest contributor.
Respectfully,
M
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
| Moonspider, skepticism is good but skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is bad, its pseudo-skepticism.
Yes, the earths climate has changed in the past but all those changes have causes, the sun, changes in the earths orbit (more elliptical or less elliptical) but when you look at the currant worming, changes in the sun isn't enough to explain it, changes in the earths orbit takes thousands to tens of thousand of years, the only explanation that fits is human actions. the realises of green house gasses and not just carbon dioxide, but others such as methane from cow shit as well. Add to this new information on the effect of CO2 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v446/n7135/nature-2007-03-29.mp3 (Go to abou 5 minets 19 seconds into it or just read the Transcript) |
Thank you for the links. I'm still doing research on the subject and will write more later.
Respectfully,
M
I think it's amazing how many opinions people have on this subject who aren't experts. It's great when people think critically about the information they are recieving, but it's good to know when you need to pay attention and listen to what the experts have to say. Even really smart people can't be experts at everything, fortunately!
I'm sure you could fill a room with the scientific papers written on this subject every month. I think that laypeople simply don't understand HOW MUCH scientific research is going on at any given moment in this country, and how much discussion there really is.
Here's a link that's short and to the point:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
There's room for an academic discussion about the results presented in that essay, but no serious global warming hypotheses that leave out anthropogenic warming have held up to scrutiny. An overwhelming mountain of evidence has already accumulated, to the point that scientists have moved almost completely (in my opinion, anyways) towards discussing what can be done to mitigate global warming, and to counteract the extreme miseducation that the public is getting regarding their role in global warming, from lobbyists and politicians.
I'm sure you could fill a room with the scientific papers written on this subject every month. I think that laypeople simply don't understand HOW MUCH scientific research is going on at any given moment in this country, and how much discussion there really is.
Here's a link that's short and to the point:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
There's room for an academic discussion about the results presented in that essay, but no serious global warming hypotheses that leave out anthropogenic warming have held up to scrutiny. An overwhelming mountain of evidence has already accumulated, to the point that scientists have moved almost completely (in my opinion, anyways) towards discussing what can be done to mitigate global warming, and to counteract the extreme miseducation that the public is getting regarding their role in global warming, from lobbyists and politicians.
Thus far much of what I know about the global warming issue I've learned from major media outlets (CNN, the networks, Fox News, BBC, newspapers, magazines, etc. – I’m a news junkie. ). However I did listen to your link, Conspirator, and read the brief essay provided by Gagnar.
Well, I haven't conducted any further research yet. I decided to focus upon what questions I need answered first. I didn’t want to simply jump into it before I outlined what facts I was looking for lest I be swayed more by the presentation of the material rather than the material itself.
My gut feeling is that an anthropogenic cause of the current warming trend is wrong. I’ll outline my objections below. Being biased to this view, I’m naturally going to be more likely to believe arguments against it than for it. However, I will try to be open-minded as I actually look into it seriously.
By education I’m an historian and I’m married to an archaeologist, so my perspective tends to be one from the point of view of history. Before climate change became an issue I was aware of such extremes as the Little Ice Age and the Holocene Climatic Optimum because of my studies of human history. If a climate argument is not supported by the historical record, then I’ll be less likely to be convinced by it.
My issues and the questions I need answered are as follows:
For now those are the concerns and questions that I have that leave me skeptical.
Respectfully,
M
). However I did listen to your link, Conspirator, and read the brief essay provided by Gagnar.
Well, I haven't conducted any further research yet. I decided to focus upon what questions I need answered first. I didn’t want to simply jump into it before I outlined what facts I was looking for lest I be swayed more by the presentation of the material rather than the material itself.
My gut feeling is that an anthropogenic cause of the current warming trend is wrong. I’ll outline my objections below. Being biased to this view, I’m naturally going to be more likely to believe arguments against it than for it. However, I will try to be open-minded as I actually look into it seriously.
By education I’m an historian and I’m married to an archaeologist, so my perspective tends to be one from the point of view of history. Before climate change became an issue I was aware of such extremes as the Little Ice Age and the Holocene Climatic Optimum because of my studies of human history. If a climate argument is not supported by the historical record, then I’ll be less likely to be convinced by it.
My issues and the questions I need answered are as follows:
- The earth’s climate is never static. It is always either cooling or warming.
- Are we not in a natural warming period? The Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th Century. So although I never hear it mentioned (as I recall), humans can only be exacerbating the current rise, not exclusively causing it, correct?
- Is the current trend so divergent from historical warming periods as to lead scientists to believe it is unnatural?
- Just 30 some odd years ago the consensus among climatologists was that the earth was possibly heading for another ice age in the near future. So I find it hard to easily swallow the pill that they obtained such a full understanding of climate in the next decade to say with absolute certainty that humans are causing a cataclysmic global warming.
- The argument for an anthropogenic cause for the current global warming trend is that global warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases, specifically CO2. Correct? Apparently the historical record can be used to show that global warming and cooling is directly related to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (as demonstrated in the large graph by Al Gore in his documentary). Are scientists certain CO2 levels cause global cooling and warming, or are CO2 levels symptomatic of global cooling and warming?
- Before the industrial revolution, what caused the significant rises in CO2 (let alone the drops afterwards)?
- What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by humans? Did not even the IPCC state that cattle (for example) contribute more than humans? What I have seen in the media presents human contributions in terms of million of tons. Sounds impressive, but what is the percentage compared to everything else in nature?
For now those are the concerns and questions that I have that leave me skeptical.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Thus far much of what I know about the global warming issue I've learned from major media outlets (CNN, the networks, Fox News, BBC, newspapers, magazines, etc. – I’m a news junkie. ). |
You really shouldn't use those as the only source, the news media has many problems, the obvious one being that there ratings hungry and focus on things that get the ratings another is when they have people on to talk about things they always have a person of opposing opinion, now this normally is a good thing but certain things such a science its not.
| Quote: |
| The earth’s climate is never static. It is always either cooling or warming. |
Yes but we natural have explanations for all those (sun orbit volcanic activity) but for the currant warming, natural factors are not enough to explain it.
| Quote: |
| Are we not in a natural warming period? The Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th Century. So although I never hear it mentioned (as I recall), humans can only be exacerbating the current rise, not exclusively causing it, correct? |
Thats true, there can be other factors but humans are the defining factor.
| Quote: |
| Is the current trend so divergent from historical warming periods as to lead scientists to believe it is unnatural? |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| Just 30 some odd years ago the consensus among climatologists was that the earth was possibly heading for another ice age in the near future. So I find it hard to easily swallow the pill that they obtained such a full understanding of climate in the next decade to say with absolute certainty that humans are causing a cataclysmic global warming. |
Not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century) the global cooling thing was largely caused by the media, the scientists never actually said that the earth was cooling and the study of it lead to concerns from some scientists about CO2 and its effects on the environment.
| Quote: |
| The argument for an anthropogenic cause for the current global warming trend is that global warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases, specifically CO2. Correct? Apparently the historical record can be used to show that global warming and cooling is directly related to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (as demonstrated in the large graph by Al Gore in his documentary). Are scientists certain CO2 levels cause global cooling and warming, or are CO2 levels symptomatic of global cooling and warming? |
The correlation alone dose not say that CO2 is the cause but it is known that CO2 is a green house gas and when you put the two together you get a cause.
| Quote: |
| Before the industrial revolution, what caused the significant rises in CO2 (let alone the drops afterwards)? |
The Sun, durring the minni ice age there where no sun spots, when there is fewer sun spots the the less the soler out put is. Currently the sun is in 11 year cycles, the molar maximum and molar minimum. We are currently in the solar minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_butterfly_with_graph.gif
| Quote: |
| What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by humans? Did not even the IPCC state that cattle (for example) contribute more than humans? What I have seen in the media presents human contributions in terms of million of tons. Sounds impressive, but what is the percentage compared to everything else in nature? |
Its not CO2 but methane (which is worse than CO2) that come from cows, and it is humans who breed the cows, we are responsible for the number of cows and thus cow shit so its still on us.
First off, I'd like to say that it's great that you are trying to get information on this subject. It's a very important one, and it's important to have good information. I believe that if everyone did have an understanding of the most current scientific consensus on global warming, we'd be in a lot better shape!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve
The link above shows the famous Keeling curve, which involves a landmark series of measurements, for a variety of reasons. To anyone aware of the link between atmospheric carbon and global temperature, it's quite alarming. Elevated CO2 may have an important effect on plant and animal communities, seperate from the effect it has on temperature.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
Here's a global average temperature graph from 1860 to the present. Notice that the temperatures were stable at around -0.4 C (from avg.) and then shift to a linear incrase corresponding with the industrial revolution. Picking up in the late 50's perhaps you can see a correlation between temperature and the Keeling curve.
Here's another figure showing temperature projections (although not peer-reviewed I believe the source is legit):
http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/images/fig9.jpg
Here is a transcript from the talk that included the above listed figure. It's a good read:
http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm
We live in a changing world. Ignorance is the enemy. Be cautious about the information you recieve from the news media. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but powerful people are interested in keeping the public from getting alarmed about global warming. They employ talented "skeptics" that provide the news media with dissenting views that aren't scientifically valid (at least, not anymore).
The experts have reached a consensus, and the debate honestly should have moved on a long time ago. Immediate action is needed to mitigate the effects of global warming and to prepare for the changes that are going to take place, and those actions won't be taken without strong public support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve
The link above shows the famous Keeling curve, which involves a landmark series of measurements, for a variety of reasons. To anyone aware of the link between atmospheric carbon and global temperature, it's quite alarming. Elevated CO2 may have an important effect on plant and animal communities, seperate from the effect it has on temperature.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
Here's a global average temperature graph from 1860 to the present. Notice that the temperatures were stable at around -0.4 C (from avg.) and then shift to a linear incrase corresponding with the industrial revolution. Picking up in the late 50's perhaps you can see a correlation between temperature and the Keeling curve.
Here's another figure showing temperature projections (although not peer-reviewed I believe the source is legit):
http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/images/fig9.jpg
Here is a transcript from the talk that included the above listed figure. It's a good read:
http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm
We live in a changing world. Ignorance is the enemy. Be cautious about the information you recieve from the news media. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but powerful people are interested in keeping the public from getting alarmed about global warming. They employ talented "skeptics" that provide the news media with dissenting views that aren't scientifically valid (at least, not anymore).
The experts have reached a consensus, and the debate honestly should have moved on a long time ago. Immediate action is needed to mitigate the effects of global warming and to prepare for the changes that are going to take place, and those actions won't be taken without strong public support.
Well let us see it this way.
If there is indeed a global warming, be it fast or slow, we have a responsibility to react. If we still assume that there is a possibility that it does not exist, I think that we should anyway begin caring about it. This is the most basic principle of cautiousness: consider the worst scenario planned as potentially realistic, then try to avoid it. If it never happens, well, good for you!
Even if I agree on the presence of some global warming right now, it seems that there are still a lot of people that do not share my opinion. I would just want to say that reducing our pollution, even if not necessarily imperative, has a lot of positive aspects. If it has no great consequence on environment, clearing away a coal power plant still cleans the landscape and ameliorates the quality of the air in the surroundings. International treaties are also goals for countries which could even set aside old rivalries until the common enemy is vainquished. This goes on for a while. There are a lot of positive, non-environmental impacts about reacting to the situation.
If there is indeed a global warming, be it fast or slow, we have a responsibility to react. If we still assume that there is a possibility that it does not exist, I think that we should anyway begin caring about it. This is the most basic principle of cautiousness: consider the worst scenario planned as potentially realistic, then try to avoid it. If it never happens, well, good for you!
Even if I agree on the presence of some global warming right now, it seems that there are still a lot of people that do not share my opinion. I would just want to say that reducing our pollution, even if not necessarily imperative, has a lot of positive aspects. If it has no great consequence on environment, clearing away a coal power plant still cleans the landscape and ameliorates the quality of the air in the surroundings. International treaties are also goals for countries which could even set aside old rivalries until the common enemy is vainquished. This goes on for a while. There are a lot of positive, non-environmental impacts about reacting to the situation.
| Soltair wrote: |
| Well let us see it this way.
If there is indeed a global warming, be it fast or slow, we have a responsibility to react. If we still assume that there is a possibility that it does not exist, I think that we should anyway begin caring about it. This is the most basic principle of cautiousness: consider the worst scenario planned as potentially realistic, then try to avoid it. If it never happens, well, good for you! Even if I agree on the presence of some global warming right now, it seems that there are still a lot of people that do not share my opinion. I would just want to say that reducing our pollution, even if not necessarily imperative, has a lot of positive aspects. If it has no great consequence on environment, clearing away a coal power plant still cleans the landscape and ameliorates the quality of the air in the surroundings. International treaties are also goals for countries which could even set aside old rivalries until the common enemy is vainquished. This goes on for a while. There are a lot of positive, non-environmental impacts about reacting to the situation. |
I don't know of anyone who disputes the fact that the earth is currently warming, not even the most abject skeptics. The question is what level humans play.
As for pollution, not all pollution produces greenhouse gases. Some pollution can actually mitigate the warming caused by greenhouse gases.
| Fred Pearce wrote: |
| Meanwhile, sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far stronger underlying warming effects than are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures. - New Scientist "Climate Change: Menace or Myth" February 12, 2005 |
Just something I saw in some recent research.
Respectfully,
M
As of 2001 (in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm), the IPCC considered the models available at the time to provide "well established" and:
The same report includes the followng as speculative:
Basically, they recognize parameters related to the effects of aerosols as weaknesses in the climate models, but that the models are now doing a good job of simulating present climate conditions, and should be reliable for making continent-scale predictions on climate change.
According to the same report the following are virtually certain:
Cooling of the lower stratosphere
Warming of the troposphere
Warming of near surface land and sea air
Retreat sea ice
Warming of oceans
The following graph shows the envelope of all climate change models evaluated at that time:
For the full report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
| Quote: |
| ...credible simulations of both the annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities. |
The same report includes the followng as speculative:
| Quote: |
| Some modelling studies suggest that adding forcings such as solar variability and volcanic aerosols to greenhouse gases and the direct sulphate aerosol effect improves the simulation of climate variability of the 20th century.
Emerging modelling studies that add the indirect effect of aerosols and of ozone changes to greenhouse gases and the direct sulphate aerosol effect suggest that the direct aerosol effect may previously have been overestimated. |
Basically, they recognize parameters related to the effects of aerosols as weaknesses in the climate models, but that the models are now doing a good job of simulating present climate conditions, and should be reliable for making continent-scale predictions on climate change.
According to the same report the following are virtually certain:
Cooling of the lower stratosphere
Warming of the troposphere
Warming of near surface land and sea air
Retreat sea ice
Warming of oceans
The following graph shows the envelope of all climate change models evaluated at that time:
For the full report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
I considered starting a new topic, but decided to put this here instead. This was published today, and is a summary of the latest 1500 pg IPCC report. IPCC scientists, apparently, fought tooth and nail against politicians from watering down the implications of the report. The worst offenders were, of course, the US and China. Here's my 'favorite' quote:
To an ecologist, this is particularly troubling:
Overall, they predict ~30% species loss worldwide
.
Here's the full report (23 pg. and a very worthwhile 15 min. read):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
| Quote: |
| Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt. |
To an ecologist, this is particularly troubling:
| Quote: |
| The great majority of organisms and ecosystems will have difficulties adapting to climate change. Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas up to 60% under high emission scenarios by 2080). |
Overall, they predict ~30% species loss worldwide
.
Here's the full report (23 pg. and a very worthwhile 15 min. read):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
I just saw today the movie of Al Gore and i am overwhelmt by the data that Al Gore used.
All the readings i saw told me that it is time to do something or the chain reaction can't be stopped and human life will maybe extinct in the next centuries.
I hope that everyone that saw the movie will share my vision:
Do everything what can be done to stop this chain reaction!!
I hope that other people will take a moment and go see the movie of Al Gore, because it is very interesting and it gives a vision how bad the problems are and will be in the near future.
All the readings i saw told me that it is time to do something or the chain reaction can't be stopped and human life will maybe extinct in the next centuries.
I hope that everyone that saw the movie will share my vision:
Do everything what can be done to stop this chain reaction!!
I hope that other people will take a moment and go see the movie of Al Gore, because it is very interesting and it gives a vision how bad the problems are and will be in the near future.
Related topics
 |